Posted under Immigration & NeoCons
Or, for the sake of convenience, just call Frum what he is: Neocon.
Frum is a prime example of this dangerous political species, which is just as universalist as the most raving Marxist (hence their enthusiasm for open borders), and always ready for another splendid little war.
What makes Neocons like Frum so noxious? Because they’re identity thieves who claim they’re conservative when in fact they’re agitating for leftist objectives.
Check out Frum’s creepy little post on the firing of John Derbyshire from National Review. He concludes with this bizarre counsel for conservatives:
The question ahead for American conservatives is whether they envision their future as a multi-ethnic coalition in favor of enterprise and individualism—or as a Bloc Québécois for older, white people. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh have embraced this latter future, and profited immensely by it. Nobody’s firing them.
Yeah, if you want to keep your job these days, you’d better not question the big-government/big-business agenda of open borders and egalitarianism. You want job security? Be a good bootlicker.
If “conservatism” is based on conserving the existing social order, how could transforming America into a Third-World country be called “conservative”? Nowhere in history has there existed a “multi-ethnic coalition” upholding free enterprise and individualism. What leads Frum to believe such a monstrosity could or should be cobbled together?
Answer: because he’s a lunatic.
Matt Weber on 22 May 2012 at 9:21 pm #
Frum claims that there has been some sort of GOP strategy to stir up racial resentment, but this just cements him as an outsider. Most people within the movement, even if on the fringes, will be glad to tell you that the GOP is not interested in racial politics. The GOP’s curse in this regard is that it has to appeal to people who are annoyed about things like Affirmative Action and anti-white bias, so it can’t just blithely dismiss them as antiquated relics like the Democrats can.
This condescension doesn’t help his point, which is a legitimate one. If conservatives can’t make their message appeal to racial minorities, for whatever reason, then what other conclusion is there but that conservatism is doomed? Some people look forward to the coming Ethnic Cleansing that is going to fix all this, but who in their right mind expects that to happen? I see three broad ways forward. One is that America slowly disaggregates until we finally decide to make it official and split the country up. Two is that America overcomes the racial tensions to form a single people, of some conception. Third, and most likely, is that an increasingly distant and powerful oligarchy simply rules the rest of the peons with no regard to what they actually want.
RedPhillips on 22 May 2012 at 9:30 pm #
Seriously Sav, you’re starting to get on my nerves.
Your MO is to make snide drive by comments but to what end?
I’m as politically obsessed as they come. I am very aware of intra-right feuds, factions, history etc. I pride myself on my ability to recognize patterns and figure out where someone is coming from based on limited evidence. That said, I can’t quite figure out what you’re up to. Now I’m sure you will chalk that up to your superior intelligence and my lack of it, but you might want to consider that maybe, just maybe, it might have something to do with your maddening crypticness.
As best as I can figure, you subscribe to the “faileocon” meme. You want us to quit talking and start doing something. (Doing what is not at all clear other than maybe support Ron Paul and not join a third party.) I think that you believe that our political appeal ought to be more racialist. Most subscribers to the “faileocon” meme do. Beyond that, I’m at a loss as to what specific plan of action you think we should pursue.
But your less talk more action critique misses a couple of points, if I may be so bold as to suggest that Savrola the Wise is less than perfect. First, if there are still people out there who believe as Frum does, then what is the harm in making the case that Frum is wrong? You certainly don’t have a problem telling people they are wrong. You seem to think our intellectual work is done. But go visit any mainstream “conservative” website. While non-interventionism is making headway, Frum style interventionist foolishness is still alive and well. It still must be countered.
Second, you fail to understand the concept of the division of labor. Is it not possible that some people are better talkers (writers) than they are on the ground activists? Why not let the talkers talk and the activists activate? I’m certainly a better talker than I am an activist. I can pontificate on minutia for hours on end, but I am a lousy organizer for various reasons. If you excel at activism then have at it. Why not let Harrison and I pontificate? I’m sure you’re aware of what the Good Book says about all the members of the body. Everybody is not an eye. Everybody is not a hand.
Also, I think you miss the point of blogging and blogs. Blogs are generally an intellectual endeavor, not an activist endeavor. DailyKos may be about activism. Chronicles is not. CHT is more Chronicles than DailyKos. If you like the DailyKos model then find the right-wing equivalent, and go for it.
While all the bloggers at CHT don’t agree on everything, we all share a general perspective. If we fail at anything it is that we talk to each other and not enough to a broad conservative audience, but that is not for a lack of trying. Part of the point of naming the site Conservative Times instead of Paleo Musing or whatever was to try to attract that broader audience. If you have some helpful suggestions for improving our reach, then make yourself useful and let us know.
So to bring it back around, I’m not sure how grand a plan can be if no one knows what it is. What point is served by your crypticness other than trying to make yourself seem oh so wise and us oh so foolish? Please try to make your point clearly and concisely so we aren’t all left scratching our heads. And please spell out your grand plan in plain language. Otherwise you’re just making a nuisance of yourself.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 22 May 2012 at 10:16 pm #
Matt Weber,
This statement by Frum is hilarious: “The Drudge Report showcases selected local police blotters to create an impression of an intensifying criminal rampage by blacks against whites.”
Yeah. There’s no black-on-white crime problem. It’s just an impression.
Actually, I think we’re already into the third scenario you mention. The screws are tightening even now, with warrantless searches and indefinite detention already on the books, and the use of drones here at home on the way.
Eventually, your first scenario will transpire. I don’t see any other possibility.
RedPhillips on 23 May 2012 at 12:04 am #
“Red, you’re defeated in discussions on other sites like AmSpec, on regular basis.”
Oh Really?! Them’s fightin’ words. Would you care to link to a discussion where I have been defeated, much less on a regular basis?
I don’t mean to toot my own horn, but I routinely argue circles around the interventionists at AmSpec because their arguments are mindless boilerplate.
RedPhillips on 23 May 2012 at 12:26 am #
“they always win”
They always win how? Because they actually win the debate or because the policy remains interventionist?
So you have some new “talking point” that will convert the interventionist masses to non-interventionism? Let’s hear it.
The reason the debate is still the same as the debate we were having in 2003 is because the debate is still the same one we were having in 2003.
I am not sure how one counters “We must intervene all over the world or else we will all surely die!!!!!!!!” except with “no we shouldn’t” and “no we won’t.” The whole debate is a variation on that theme.
Feltan on 23 May 2012 at 2:08 am #
Matt Weber,
” I see three broad ways forward. One is that America slowly disaggregates until we finally decide to make it official and split the country up. Two is that America overcomes the racial tensions to form a single people, of some conception. Third, and most likely, is that an increasingly distant and powerful oligarchy simply rules the rest of the peons with no regard to what they actually want.”
Very well put; insightful.
Regards,
Feltan
RedPhillips on 23 May 2012 at 3:07 am #
“They had war, and the neo-cons lost and now all the sheep are wandering around in a daze, unwilling to defend foreign interventionism.”
Sav, what planet do you live on because it clearly isn’t Earth? They are “unwilling to defend foreign interventionism?!? Are you kidding me? They rabidly, militantly defend foreign intervention. Can you read?
“In a debate, only one guy wins. That’s not you. You don’t win converts, support, and in many cases, even the respect of your adversaries.”
Show me some links where I didn’t win on the merits. The standard can’t be converting the interventionist true believers. They’re going to be interventionists until the bitter end. The question is who makes the better case to those who are on the fence.
I’ll post some links of people rabidly defending interventionism. That won’t be hard at all. You post some links of me getting out debated.
RedPhillips on 23 May 2012 at 3:17 am #
This is too easy. I just went to the first interventionist vs. non-interventionist thread I came to which was from yesterday. Every single interventionist vs. non-interventionist thread would equally illustrate my point.
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/05/21/losing-the-world-to-win-reelec#commentcontainer
Read that and tell me that no one is willing to defend foreign interventionism. The author of the article itself does. Zbig does as usual. Oldefarte does. Al Adab does. We even get several obligatory references to WWII. Etc.
What are you smoking?
Feltan on 23 May 2012 at 4:17 am #
Savrola,
Name calling? You think that is going to impress the idealogical competition?
Isn’t that what the race pimps do calling everyone who disagrees with them a racist?
Isn’t that what the rabid Israeli backers do calling everyone an anti-semite if you disagree with them?
I am not sure how life has damaged you, but calling people a traitor for disagreeing on a position not only won’t impress anyone, it makes the name caller look juvenile and sophmoric. Your suggestion isn’t a tactic, it is a temper tantrum.
Regards,
Feltan
C Bowen on 23 May 2012 at 10:08 am #
Felton;
Babbin is an actual criminal. He was part of the Pentagon Pundit’s program–any time he posts anywhere, someone should remind the audience. And I do think lying one’s countrymen into a war is a good opportunity for yelling Treason.
Take John Bolton–he took money from a terrorist organization (along with Guiliani, Tom Ridge, Tancredo, Howard Dean.) Great opportunity to suggest he be sent to Gitmo.
The question is: what is productive posting on a mainstream Con Inc board?
Feltan on 23 May 2012 at 1:11 pm #
Treason is a specific charge. The crime is actually defined in the Constitution (Article III, Section 3). It should not be thrown around losely.
It is generally accepted that for the charge of treason to be employable, the country must be at war. In the absence of a Congressional Declaration of War, the charge of treason is not generally used — one needs a declared enemy. This is why U.S. citizens that who’ve taken up arms with the Taliban are not charged with treason.
You may disagree with Jed Babbin or John Bolton. I do. But they haven’t been convicted of any crime as far as I can tell. They have opinions, and they have influence — you have to defeat their arguments in the court of public opinion. Simply declaring them treasonous for holding opinions counter to yours is lessens your standing and strengthens theirs.
Regards,
Feltan
Feltan on 23 May 2012 at 2:59 pm #
So disagreeing with Savrola is proof of autism?
That is the best response you have?
At lease I am not a traitor too!
You do realize that in classical logic, an ad hominem attack is considered a logical fallacy. It renders one’s argument void and null.
Regards,
Feltan
RonL on 23 May 2012 at 4:35 pm #
Wasn’t Frum pushing immigration restriction just a few months ago?
RedPhillips on 23 May 2012 at 6:20 pm #
Frum and some other neocons have somewhat seen the light on immigration because they aren’t stupid and know it endangers their pro-intervention coalition. But they will screech in feigned horror at any suggestion that demographic change is an issue in and of itself.
C Bowen on 23 May 2012 at 7:22 pm #
The last I heard from Frum was his defense then capitulation to firing one of his writers who was outed as having written rather disturbingly on the subject of man-boy relations.
That mini- scandal was hilarious.
RedPhillips on 23 May 2012 at 8:43 pm #
“Go talk to the man on the street. go talk to the average Republican.
They ain’t going to defend the war, they aren’t going be enthusiastic about invading Iran.”
As for the man on the street, I think you are correct. Most have some vague sense that they want the US to be “strong” and not get pushed around, but they are not AmSpec style committed intervetionists.
As for the average Republican, I don’t think you are. It depends on what you mean by average. The guy who generally votes Republican maybe. The guy who identifies as a Republican and is involved with the party, no way. You said you campaigned for Ron Paul. So did I. If I heard “I love Ron Paul on economic issues but hate him on foreign policy” once I heard it a hundred times. Rah rah militarism and nationalism is part of the culture of the Republican Party. It’s one reason I am uncomfortable working in the GOP and feel much more at home in a third party.
RedPhillips on 23 May 2012 at 8:47 pm #
I started a separate thread on the topic of how to debate interventionists. Let’s take this conversation there.
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=11455
C Bowen (Hawthorne) on 23 May 2012 at 10:12 pm #
“Rah rah militarism and nationalism is part of the culture of the Republican Party”
Exactly why the enemy must be identified as internal. I have already written that I sat and gave a standing ovation to a House Rep hopeful (challenging and Establishment type) who wove Defense (we have a naval yard in district), nationalism, and globalist treason into a speech.
I just had my local meeting last night, and it worked. People don’t recall what he said exactly, in the sense that I do, they just know that he said something that was true.
__
I think Sav meant that our potential political supporters are Republicans (white people) who have to be motivated to action.
Further, your last point is the point, Sav has been hinting at this–there are no paleocons in the Paul masses (old Buchanan hands sure, but no paleocons in the trenches, having rationalized that they shall not play a part).
And why not go storm the Democratic Party–that is the future of non-interventionism? Alvin Green (you must have a friend named Jackson?), a convict and some Texan have tested weakness.
RedPhillips on 24 May 2012 at 1:59 am #
“And why not go storm the Democratic Party–that is the future of non-interventionism?”
C Bowen, if I can’t tolerate the rah rah militarism and nationalism of the GOP, how am I going to tolerate baby killers, gay “marriage” advocates and PC fetishists in the Democrat Party?
C Bowen on 24 May 2012 at 12:12 pm #
When the average homosexual figures out that SWPL white women (the core driver of gay marriage) intend to selectively abort their kind out of existence, all sorts of fun things can happen–but that wasn’t really my point.
A radically new set of tactics and thinking, running candidates with name recognition (find a friend name Jackson) and keep the focus on globalism or ecology…every reason to think that would be at least as productive then posting on a Babbin piece.
Feltan on 25 May 2012 at 1:24 am #
“When the average homosexual figures out that SWPL white women (the core driver of gay marriage) intend to selectively abort their kind out of existence, all sorts of fun things can happen–but that wasn’t really my point.”
I sort of wish it was your main point! Very rich. It would be easy to spin a whole thread on that point alone.
Regards,
Feltan
Sean Scallon on 27 May 2012 at 5:43 pm #
“Fox News and Rush Limbaugh have embraced this latter future, and profited immensely by it. Nobody’s firing them.
Actually Frum asks a very good question, why haven’t Limbaugh or any the reporters or pundits or anchors on Fox News who have said similar incendiary comments been given the same treatments as Derbyshire?
The answer, I suspect, is that this more to do with race. It has to do other things Derbyshire has said, about war or Ron Paul or on a number of topics he was becoming more and more out of step with the “conservative” establishment.
And now that I think about, I think Frum very well knows the answer to his own question. That is, Derbyshire became expendable while Limbaugh and and NRO and Drudge and everyone are still of value so long as they tow the same party line. They can still get away it, Derbyshire could not